Pride Month! I celebrate.

[Dr_Patrick]

I think that you are wrong to assume I'm arrogant, yes, And I think you're wrong in pointing it out even if I were and then claim you don't attack.

If you want to infer attitudes though dry text in the absence of vocal cues, body language, or even stylized text, that's fine, but don't feign innocence when your wrong and it's pointed out.

Tone has nothing to do with it. Obviously one can't get tone from text. The fact that you want people to try to change your opinion as if it actually hangs in a delicate balance says it all.

If you want to attack, that's your option, but to then say that you don't attack is equivocation.

I don't call it an attack because I'm calling it like I see it. If you don't like to be referred to as arrogant, then don't engage in things that could easily be interpreted as such.

***
No, I'm not an official, but I can organize with the best of them. I have and can again debate face to face with either side, in front of everyone else at whatever event their side happens to have organized.
I know that I have a voice, and I know how to wield that voice.

No part of that is arrogance.

Confidence isn't arrogance. Though, there is a very thin line between the two. When you start trying to get people to jump through hoops for you it does become arrogance.

 

[Jerry]

By the way Jerry I am a 100% facist when it comes to child pornography or child sex laws. I can turn intolerant very quickly so if you want to make the point that my arguements are as subjective as yours-I think you would be dead on. In the end, we may disagree but I certainly respect your views precisely because they are based on values you feel committed to. I do not think for a second your position is based on hatred although the greed term to me I would myself have not used. I think though the point is for many people, they get married out of an act of self-indulgence and if that is what you meant my greed, uh yah. But then I see self-indulgent putzes both straight and gay equally. I don't care who they are Jerry, eventually they have the same body odour.

It's not the smell, it's that some people genuinely think the dumpster smells like a rose garden and want to place it in the park.

If it's not actually a rose garden, it's a dumpster, and it's place in in the ally.

 

[Jerry]

Tone has nothing to do with it. Obviously one can't get tone from text. The fact that you want people to try to change your opinion as if it actually hangs in a delicate balance says it all.

Doesn't it, though? Again, when you debate me you are not debating only me, but everyone else who ever reads this thread, and you are preparing for the next person you debate.

If you can catch this one fish, you will learn how to catch may more fish in the future.

I don't call it an attack because I'm calling it like I see it. If you don't like to be referred to as arrogant, then don't engage in things that could easily be interpreted as such.

"Call it like I see it" = attack, though.

Attack away if want, just don't then claim you don't attack.

Confidence isn't arrogance. Though, there is a very thin line between the two. When you start trying to get people to jump through hoops for you it does become arrogance.

Then I am at worst no more arrogant that the pro-gm who want my money/vote

Gays came to me. They want me to jump through a hoop for them.

I ask "why" and that makes me arrogant?

Well ok then, we're all arrogant now, can we get to the issue please?

 

[Inferno]

Everything that I have read tells me that there are no statistcs that are any good as there are few states that allow same sae marriage and that the history for those states is far to short to give any credible data.

So the only way to find out if Same sex marrige is any better than hetero marriage is to try it out. Soon enough it will be legal everywhere and we will get to see the true numbers.

As long as straight marriage is legal and as long as TS's can marry than same sexers should have that same right. TS's can nopt have children either. But since they have been sliced and diced they can legally marry and gays and lesbians ca't that is simple bull****. Pure and simple.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

All the same is true for heteros, yet we still have a 50% divorce rate.

How will gay-marriage be any different?

If gay-marriage will have all the same cancers that hetero-marriage has, then imo paying any attention to gay-marriage is to ignore the real problems.

Firstly, I am not suggesting that gay marriage will operate any differently than straight marriage. Secondly, the divorce problem affecting marriage in thus country is a different debate.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Interestingly, women have no seminal material to deposit, so I guess you have no problem with lesbians. And I take it from your words that you oppose condoms and oral sex to completion.

Yes, lesbians don't want seminal material. That means if lesbianism is caused by genetics, then that defect reduces their reproductive viability by making them desire acts that will not result in their genes being replicated in offspring.

I don't have a "problem" with any homosexuals, I'm merely pointing out the problems you people have with understanding the ramifications of your illness.

 

[Redress]

Yes, lesbians don't want seminal material. That means if lesbianism is caused by genetics, then that defect reduces their reproductive viability by making them desire acts that will not result in their genes being replicated in offspring.

I don't have a "problem" with any homosexuals, I'm merely pointing out the problems you people have with understanding the ramifications of your illness.

You have yet to offer any evidence that homosexuality is an illness. You have simply shown that homosexual sex does not result in children, which I think we already knew.

By the way, I am strait, not gay.

 

[Blunt]

With all the over population on planet earth I think gay and lesbian lifestyles should be encouraged, maybe we should give those brave folks an award
The Darwin Awards

 

[Jerry]

So the only way to find out if Same sex marrige is any better than hetero marriage is to try it out. Soon enough it will be legal everywhere and we will get to see the true numbers.

The reason why that's not a viable option is because once instituted, gay-marriage will never be repealed.

As long as straight marriage is legal and as long as TS's can marry than same sexers should have that same right. TS's can nopt have children either. But since they have been sliced and diced they can legally marry and gays and lesbians ca't that is simple bull****. Pure and simple.

I'm not familiar..."TN" stands for what?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

So, what you're saying is that you too are incapable of understanding the implications of the existence of homosexuality in a rational mode so your very first post on the matter is an ad hominem nuclear style attack to demonstrate your solidarity in your refusal to think.

fine by me.

No, I said what I meant. Your ignorance on this topic us quite vast and you're inability to even address my points accurately in my post shows both this and your penchant for debating dishonestly. You continue to prove these points.

yes, it is.

No it isn't. You've offered no evidence if your position, as usual. Until you do all you are doing is spouting foolishness. Come on Scarecrow, let's see some evidence.

Just because the psychologists altered their DSM manual when a large minority of psychologists came out of the closet doesn't alter the fact that homosexuality is an abnormal mode of behavior, one that has to have some definable cause, whether we can presently define it or not.

I'm impressed with you complete lack of knowledge on this topic. I have plenty of information demonstating just how erroneous this "position" of yours is. I'm at work, so I will post the information later, so I can continue your education.

See what I mean?

Other than the fact that you have offered nothing and that I am correct?

In other words, the original definition of a psychological disorder that to this day causes grief and maladjustment amongst it's suffers was not objected to when first applied.

No, in other words, since homosexuality in and of itself does not cause distress as was found amongst the non- patient population, it was declassified. You understanding things yet?

Bingo.

WTF you think I bin sayin', boy?

Guess what? It means you can't claim homosexuality is "a different kind of normal".

Bingo. This is the basis of you fallacy and how you misrepresent things. Very poor debating. I said nothing about homosexuality. My comment was about SEXUALITY. It applies to all orientations. So if any claim you then make applies to straights, too. See how silly you look now?

What's that sound? Oh yes, it's the sound if you failing.

Gee, really? What have you been quoting me as saying, and then claiming I was ignorant? I've been saying "genetic, developmental, choice". Your use of "biological" is naturally a composite of genetic and developmental.

Never said you were ignorant; just your position. And again, your misrepresenting. You never described sexuality with those 3 components; you decrubed homosexuality that way. And that is your error and your fallacy.

You can now thank me for correcting you.

I must return to work. More later.

 

[Jerry]

Firstly, I am not suggesting that gay marriage will operate any differently than straight marriage. Secondly, the divorce problem affecting marriage in thus country is a different debate.

They are identical.

That is the issue pro-gm needs to address in the eyes of anti-gm in order to get support, so dismissing the argument does not serve you.

 

[Jerry]

Yes, lesbians don't want seminal material. That means if lesbianism is caused by genetics, then that defect reduces their reproductive viability by making them desire acts that will not result in their genes being replicated in offspring.

I don't have a "problem" with any homosexuals, I'm merely pointing out the problems you people have with understanding the ramifications of your illness.

"Illness" has a specific definition, can you demonstrate with credible sources how homosexuality fits that definition?

 

[Redress]

They are identical.

That is the issue pro-gm needs to address in the eyes of anti-gm in order to get support, so dismissing the argument does not serve you.

Noooo...you are about the only anti-GM that I know of that makes that argument. And, as already addressed, we don't need you hardcore conservatives to pass GM

 

[Jerry]

Noooo...you are about the only anti-GM that I know of that makes that argument. And, as already addressed, we don't need you hardcore conservatives to pass GM

rof I'm not anti-gm.

 

[Inferno]

The reason why that's not a viable option is because once instituted, gay-marriage will never be repealed.



I'm not familiar..."TN" stands for what?

TS stands for transgender. a male that becomes a female can be legally married in the US a female that becomes a male can legally be married in the US. Bisexuals can marry because of the nature of who they are and their sexuality. Gays and Lesbians can't marry. They are the only class discriminated against.

Marriage also has nothing to do with a couple having children as people that can not have children are allowed to be married. So it stands that in the US they have picked Lesbians and Gays to pick on. We can not marry the people that we want when every other class can.

 

[Redress]

The reason why that's not a viable option is because once instituted, gay-marriage will never be repealed.

Good, hopefully it gets passed fast. Then our childrens children won't have to deal with this crap.

I'm not familiar..."TN" stands for what?

I saw "TS" in the post you quoted, not "TN". Assuming you just typoed, it's "transexual".

 

[Redress]

rof I'm not anti-gm.

You are also one of the few making your argument. I doubt we have to convince those who think as you do to pass GM.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

They are identical.

That is the issue pro-gm needs to address in the eyes of anti-gm in order to get support, so dismissing the argument does not serve you.

No they're not. Since there is no reason to believe that there would be much differece from a divorce standpoint amongst gays verses straights, this is a moot issue. From a family perspective, what GM will do is provide a positive healthy environment to raise children. THIS is the issue. You are bringing up a red herring.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

rof I'm not anti-gm.

Even assuming everyone in question were heterosexual: if a married man meets a woman and falls madly in love with her, he should not brake his vows to pursue that relationship.

Here, even when we remove homosexuality from the equation entirely, we see repulsive behavior. The fact that homosexuality is being used to cover for that repulsive behavior is only more reason to oppose gay-marriage.

In fact, I don't actually recall seeing any pro-gm posts from you. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Jerry]

TS stands for transgender. a male that becomes a female can be legally married in the US a female that becomes a male can legally be married in the US. Bisexuals can marry because of the nature of who they are and their sexuality. Gays and Lesbians can't marry. They are the only class discriminated against.

Man+woman regardless of illness, yes, no one opposes that.

Gays fight for something else.

Marriage also has nothing to do with a couple having children as people that can not have children are allowed to be married. So it stands that in the US they have picked Lesbians and Gays to pick on. We can not marry the people that we want when every other class can.

In order to win conservative support, you will need to lay down that objection and accept that premise, otherwise we're not listening.

 

[Redress]

In order to win conservative support, you will need to lay down that objection and accept that premise, otherwise we're not listening.

You can speak for all conservatives? When did you get chosen as the voice of conservatism?

 

[Jerry]

In fact, I don't actually recall seeing any pro-gm posts from you. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

Here's one...

Marriage is about raising children. I'm closed to debating rather or not it is, so anyone who disagrees can piss-off. It is, end of debate.

Since marriage is about raising children, I am willing to cast my vote to open the door to any significant demographic who is raising children. Any demographic. Gays. Polygamists. Incest. Any.

 

[Inferno]

Man+woman regardless of illness, yes, no one opposes that.

Gays fight for something else.



In order to win conservative support, you will need to lay down that objection and accept that premise, otherwise we're not listening.

It is going to happen in the end anyway. The younger people are overwhelmingly for same sex marriage. The point is this is a discrimination and some people just don't see it that way. So for now in some places MOB RULES. That is okay I have waited 40 years and I am content to wait a few more.

 

[Dr_Patrick]

Here's one...

That's not really pro-gm, though, because you said you would support any significant demographic who is raising children. You are merely restating your odd position about how you think marriage is solely about children (which you've yet to provide proof for) just like you've done repeatedly throughout this thread. Once again you are acting as if your views hang in a delicate balance and expect people to convince you one way or another. It's incredibly egotistical and arrogant.

 

[Jerry]

Since there is no reason to believe that there would be much differece from a divorce standpoint amongst gays verses straights, this is a moot issue.

I would ask you for the comparative data you used to arrive at this conclusion, but so far I've been waiting 3 years and I haven't seen it, so I won't hold my breath for another 3 years. Inferno says it doesn't exist, so when I read her posts with yours I see a fracture in the pro-gm movement itself.

Even if after all this time you finally decided to show the data you have already reviewed to arrive at your conclusion, if gay-marriage is not an improvement, I'm not on board with it.

"Gays will have a 50% divorce rate" is not a convincing argument to those of us who oppose that 50% divorce rate to begin with. We want the divorce rate brought down, so unless gay-marriage is going to help, we don't care. If we don't care, gays don't get our money/vote.

From a family perspective, what GM will do is provide a positive healthy environment to raise children. THIS is the issue. You are bringing up a red herring.

I'm discussing that issue, unless you, a therapist, don't believe that divorce harms children. Far from a red herring, I'm right on topic.

Is it possible that you missed my linking divorce to juvenile crime and it's cost to me directly?